1993 (2) TMI 108 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to excise duty order, Alternative remedy under Section 35-G(3) of the Act, Error apparent on the face of the order, Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed to challenge an excise duty order issued by the first respondent, which was confirmed by the second respondent. The petitioner, a private limited company, was found to have shortages and excesses of yarn during an inspection, leading to the imposition of excise duty. The petitioner appealed the orders of the respondents but did not pursue the alternative remedy under Section 35-G(3) of the Act, which raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the failure to invoke the alternative remedy does not bar moving the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution if there is an error apparent in the impugned orders. He cited precedents to support this argument. However, the Court noted that the Tribunal had thoroughly analyzed the evidence before arriving at its conclusions, and even if there were disagreements with the Tribunal's findings, the Court would not substitute its own. The Court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy does not prevent approaching the Court under Article 226 if there is an error apparent on the face of the records.

The Tribunal's order dismissing the Reference Application was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and facts presented. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal's findings were not arbitrary or perverse, and therefore, there was no error apparent on the face of the impugned orders. The Court referenced a Division Bench judgment and a similar case from another High Court to support the view that the petitioner should have pursued the remedy under Section 35-G(3) of the Act instead of directly approaching the Court under Article 226. Consequently, the Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents' counsel and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded.

In conclusion, the Court found that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 35-G(3) of the Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable. The Court clarified that the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution if there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned orders. However, in this case, the Court determined that the Tribunal's findings were based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, and there was no justification for invoking the writ jurisdiction instead of the statutory remedy.